Topic for discussion - manumission

[epeeblade]

(I haven't done one of these in a while, so here goes...)

I was reading the latest bit of A Kept Boy last night when something occurred to me.

In it Jensen vehemently denies being part of any family, and denies any identity other than that of slave. He's not the only one raised from childhood to be the perfect slave.

So what would happen then if the abolitionist movement does pass a manumission clause? Now granted, it's probably not going to cause hundreds of people freeing their slaves en masse, but I can imagine wealthy owners "freeing their slaves" in their will after they pass. What happens to the slaves who can't imagine a life outside of slavery?

(And yes this would probably be AU like whoah, but it's something I'm interested in seeing explored in fic...)

Comments

[i0am0crazy.livejournal.com]

uhmm i think there would just have to be some people helping the newly freed...
like how to get housing,work ect...

in a more radical movement also how to get social security or even be compensated for the free work one did for so many years.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

You know, I think it would be very similar to what happens with longtime prisoners who have been let out of prison with no real way to integrate into society as a whole. It would be irresponsible for the abolitionists to provide for all-out manumission without providing some mechanism for taking care of these slaves. Maybe a system similar to halfway houses? Or a way to reconnect with family, should the ex-slave wish? Or a requirement for temporary financial support from the ex-owner? I think the Stockholm Syndrome/disconnection with society would run so deep with some that they might not even want to leave their master's/mistress's household.

manumission

[vambrace.livejournal.com]

Actually, this very thing happened in the American South when the Emancipation Proclamation issued. Many slaves were either deeply attached to their families or too frightened and ill-equipped to make it on their own. Many just stayed where they were and shifted from having everything supplied for them to being tenant farmers or being paid wages.

[lapillus]

I could also see something like the Roman system where freemen were clients of their former masters (just as their masters would be clients of more powerful citizens). This also brings up the interesting question of if they'd be denied citizenship (as were freed slaves in Rome) but with their free-born children being citizens or what. I could see either or both happening as a way to keep things still under control while permitting the incentive to be a good, well-behaved slave that manumission offers.

[kaylez4ever.livejournal.com]

I had the same thought when reading controlled violence.

What would happen to people who embraced slavery or were brainwashed into excepting their place in the system?

And when they were freed would they have the same rights or would they be forever separate? Denied the same freedoms and rights as everyone else?

AU Keptverse

[hippychc.livejournal.com]

I wondered what else this could do to the fabric of society. Would their "me generation" choose not to marry or have relationships or ever have children because it easier and safer to just take care of themselves? Would "not rich" people choose to have sterilizations or abortions more often than taking the risk of starting a family. Or maybe the pressure of society would dictate that certain family members could be chosen to inherit a family's wealth and the right to propagate, the rest of the family would only work to be sure the lucky ones were cared for and stayed free. Would some women go into the business of making babies as a source of income..... fear of Commerce would make for some weird social situations.

[khemlab.livejournal.com]

(And yes this would probably be AU like whoah, but it's something I'm interested in seeing explored in fic...)

Another thought that I didn't address in my comment above is that, theoretically, it could be done on a state-by-state basis, similar to historical slavery in the U.S. So Montana, for instance, might decide to abolish slavery, even though it might not happen in California. If someone chose to write it this way, it would make be a little less "AU to the AU," I think.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

The thing to remember is that technically, all slaves are owned by the federal government through Commerce. When you buy a slave, you're really buying the right to contract their labor. Over time, this distinction has been seriously blurred, but a strict reading of the laws makes it clear that Commerce reserves the right to revoke an existing contract and reclaim the slave at any time.

(Note: everything after this is referring to slaves owned by individuals. Corporate slaves are a whole different case in practice, though not in law.)

I don't actually think that individuals can make dispositions for their slaves, if they technically don't own them. I suspect that most of the time, Commerce just transfers the contracts of the existing slaves to the heirs, but if the heir can't provide proof of ability to support the slaves, or there's a political point to be made, Commerce will just take them back.

What I've always envisioned for eventual manumission legislation is something along the Roman model, where slaves are allowed to buy their freedom for an amount to be determined by Commerce. This would mean that only a small number of slaves would be freed, because they would need to have both the desire to be free, and be owned by someone who was willing to either give them the money up front, or to accept "tips" or payment for work in some way. The slave will also have to provide evidence that they have some means of support.

So for instance: Dylan will find out the buyback price for all of his slaves, and then have the ones that want freedom create accounts (probably managed by Commerce). He'll deposit the buyback price into the account, plus an amount equal to at least one years' wages for a similar non-slave position. The slave writes a check to Commerce, and they're free. In Dylan's case, though, none of his slaves are going to leave, so he'll hire them all back at salary. Fortunately, his grandmother left him a lot of money; he's going to need it.

All of which is to say that manumission would have to be a joint effort between masters and slaves, and the masters who are willing to do that are almost always going to be the ones who'll hire their former slaves as paid staff, so the difference--and it's a big difference--will be that as staff, people can choose to leave. Slaves who don't want to be free, won't be.
'
Don't forget that Jensen is an extreme; even with people who were in the system since childhood, most don't internalize their training as strongly. Chris in "More Than One Answer" was born a slave and was taught from the time he could understand language that his role was to serve. But because he had to be trained to respond to a variety of situations, he grew up thinking of being a slave as his job or career, and it's not tied into his sense of self in the way that Cruise indoctrinated Jensen. Chris is going to do the work he was trained to do, whether he's a slave or free, and as long as he can keep doing what he's good at, he'll be happy.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Coming in late as usual, but anyway.... [duck]

One possible first step would be to change the law so that children born to slaves were free instead of slave. Right now the slave population is growing two ways -- both people who go bankrupt, or families who nearly go bankrupt and sacrifice a child, and also the slave population reproducing. Cutting off that second point of growth would let the reformers concentrate on the economic problem slavery was designed to cope with. Even without manumission, if you can solve the economic problem -- not assuming that no one will ever be poor or bankrupt again, but coming up with different ways of dealing with that than enslavement -- eventually slavery would dwindle.

Of course, there's the question of whether the slaves and reformers would be willing to wait that long. But the more time they could buy with mitigating legislation, the less of a problem there'd be when the crisis point came.

Assuming some point of mass manumission, I'd assume it'd work out much like it did the last time, with newly freed slaves going into debt so they can afford to live right then and there, and falling into a cycle of constantly paying off last year's debt with this year's work. Sharecropping wasn't all that much different from slavery when you get right down to it. If anything, it was more of a benefit to the landowners; if one of the tenants died or was disabled, the owner could just find someone else to work the land, rather than having to invest the money to buy someone else to do the work, as they would've if they depended on slaves.

I can see the biggest slave owners/contractors -- the factories, that sort of mass employer -- ending up with most of the same workers, or drawing from the same pool of workers, and the whole thing ending up as a massive debt-indenture system similar to sharecropping, just because if all the slaves were suddenly freed, the vast majority of them wouldn't have owners like Dylan who were able and willing to set them up. :/

Angie

[deadlychameleon.livejournal.com]

In this system, I'm guessing many of the freed slaves (who didn't want to be free/weren't planning on it) would immediately go broke and go back into the system.

Or, they'd find a master/employer and while technically maintaining their freedom, basically be a slave anyway. That's probably what I'd see happening with Jensen. If manumission were legal, Jeff wouldn't allow him to remain a slave, but he'd still choose to be Jeff's.

I think Jensen would be the perfect second in command for Jeff as a general/resistance fighter if civil war did break out over slavery (again). It would be a very interesting relationship to see.